Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: early postoperative outcomes after surgical reduction of enlarged genital hiatus

Abstract

Background: Currently, the decision to perform a concurrent posterior repair/perineoplasty at the time of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy is not standardized.

Objective: We sought to compare anatomic failure after robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy among 3 groups of patients categorized by their preoperative and postoperative genital hiatus size.

Study design: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy, from January 2013 through September 2016. We defined a wide genital hiatus as ≥4 cm and a normal genital hiatus as <4 cm. We compared 3 groups: (1) wide preoperative and postoperative genital hiatus (persistently wide); (2) wide preoperative and normal postoperative genital hiatus (improved); and (3) normal preoperative and postoperative genital hiatus (stably normal). Our primary outcome was composite anatomic failure defined as either recurrent prolapse in any compartment past the hymen or retreatment for prolapse with either surgery or pessary. Our data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and χ² test. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate for independent risk factors for anatomic failure among the 3 groups. P < .05 was considered significant.

Results: Our study population consisted of 452 women with a mean age of 59.3 ± 10.0 years and a mean body mass index of 27.8 ± 5.3 kg/m². Of the women with reported race, 394/447 (88.1%) were white. The genital hiatus groups were distributed as follows: 57 (12.6%) were persistently wide, 296 (65.5%) were improved, and 99 (21.9%) were stably normal. The stably normal group had less advanced preoperative prolapse (stage ≥3) than the other groups (P < .01). A similar percentage of patients among groups had a concomitant posterior repair/perineoplasty (P = .09) with a total of 84 (18.6%) women undergoing this procedure. There was a statistically significant difference in overall composite anatomic failure among the groups (P = .03). There was an increase in failure in the persistently wide group (14.0%) compared to the improved group (5.7%, P = .04) and compared to the stably normal group (4.0%, P = .03). In a logistic regression model, controlling for number of vaginal deliveries and posterior repair/perineoplasty, there was a 5.3-fold increased odds of composite anatomic failure in the persistently wide group (adjusted odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-19.1; P = .01) compared to the stably normal group. In a subanalysis of failure by compartment, there was an increase in failure of the posterior compartment in the persistently wide group compared to the improved group (8.8% vs 2.0%, P < .01), but not the stably normal group (3.0%, P = .12). There was not a statistically significant difference in failure of the combined apical and anterior compartments among groups (P = .29).

Conclusion: Surgical reduction of an enlarged preoperative genital hiatus decreases early composite anatomic failure, after robotic sacrocolpopexy, specifically related to the posterior compartment. Studies investigating the correlation of intraoperative measurement of genital hiatus to postoperative genital hiatus are needed to help clinicians determine who may benefit from a concomitant posterior repair/perineoplasty at the time of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

Keywords: genital; hiatus; posterior; repair; robotics; sacrocolpopexy.